^And I'm sure, given their URL, that they aren't biased in the least...
Gravteck: I found it, here you go...
The following was written by Gravteck, over a year ago.
''My favorite argument against creationism and religion:
Get ready to think.
1) This is the hardest step but you must imagine absolutely nothing, don't think outerspace without matter, imagine no space, and no matter.
2) Quantam theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical systems. This is what I was saying before. We don't even have to picture this in terms of time, just in terms of probability, the likeliness of an event to happen, you can have probability w/o time.
3) Anyone who has taken chem has heard about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Where you can no the speed of an atom, and not its location, or its location and not its speed. This is one of the problems with atoms, it is IMPOSSIBLE to predict the behavior of a single atom, or even 10 atoms together, we can only predict what happens in a substantial group of atoms. We'll refer to the actions of one particle or atom as uncertainties.
4)Quantam measurements have shown that vacuums are also subject to these same uncertainties. So what does this mean? ahhh yes just as individual atoms in groups of matter appear and reappear... well for lack of better terms you could understand, the same thing happens in vaccuums. Although we can't direcly observe it, when tests are run on the strengths of a known mount of electron activity it shows that these fluctuations and things popping out of n othingness, are indeed real, in fact its happening in space right now. Granted these fluctuations of particles usually only last for 10E-21 seconds.
5) Here comes the kicker, how do we get the universe from having one sustained fluctuation. Well this fluctuation is referred to as a 'false vacuum' the theory is very difficult to understand and i doubt i can really explain it that well, it's not really a vacuum it's a type of matter that acts very strangely. Imagine a gas, as the gas expands, it also disperses. However a false cavuum actually expands and retains its energy without dispersing, meaning it stays concentrated while it expands. This means RAPID EXPANSION, because you're not decreasing the density, only increasing it based on its nature to inflate. Calculations with false vacuums even show that a path of a valse vacuum only 1 billionth the size of a proton would rapidly and exponentially grow to the size of a marble in 10E-34 second!!! That would be exactly like a pea growing to the size of a Milky way... yes I know it sounds strange, but hopefully if I haven't convinced you of how something could come to be, you now have something to go on if you'd like to read about it further.''
''I'm saying that space is nothing, and that since we exist it was never possible that there was absolutely complete voided nothing. I'm pretty sure this is sound physics. As long as you can accept that it's possible that there has always been the vacuum of space (which again i think is physically sound...) then the vacuum fluctuation observations support the theory of where matter for the big bang could have came from. ''
''The vacuum fluctuation produces two subatomic particles, one positive and one negative. This is the first sign of any matter. the theory is that the false vacuum produced further subatomic particles, because one characteristic of the false vacuum is that it has an enormous repulsive gravitational field strong enough to explode into a universe. So when the false vacuum starts compounding there is a huge amount of ever doubling energy which decays and reacts w/ the other subatomic particles to turn into a stew of electrons, positrongs, and neutrinos. By the rate of compounding this soup of electrons and positrons and neutrinos heat and neutralize eachother into atoms... in the time of about 300,000 years. Simple atoms like hydorgogen, helium, and lithium were further 'ripped' apart and 'crushed' together to form more complex atoms inside stars and were eventually exploded into space by supernovas. so we start w/ the false vacuum whic hi is an era of quantum gravity->quark soup->origin of protons and neutrons->origin of light atomic nuclei->origin of atoms->first galaxies->on into today. Theoretically the quantum mechanics of vacuum fluctuations actually allow for even a dog or cat to pop into existence, but the probability of subatomic particles sustaining is already low, and the actual high ordered animal is hella unlikely, but it's kinda cool to think about anyway. ''
Phattim Replies:
''Gravteck: Yeah, interesting, I see what you're saying dude. But what about the Cosmological Red Shift? It's due to the Crompton effect rather than the Doppler effect. If the red ship was produced as a result of the Crompton effect then the universe is not expanding at all, it is 'static'.
The oldest and perhaps best known problem of Big Band Theory is that of the singularity. At the first instant of the Big Bang universe, in which its density and temperature were infinitely high, is what is known to mathematicians as a singularity. That situation is considered to be a breakdown of theory. That is, it cannot be assumed that the laws of physics as we know them can apply to that event, thus presenting serious questions about it.
In addition, the postulated creation of the entire mass and energy of the universe out of nothing in the first instant of time, seems to represent an extreme violation of the law of conservation of mass/energy.
If the big bang were to have happened. It would have required an infinate amount of energy right? Accelerating particles to well about light speed which would take an infinite amount of energy to do so. All these accelerating particles would create so much energy that any other particle gaining speed would simply not be able to escape the ever increasing gravitational mass of the center of the 'forming universe', leading to a probable implosion or something, I dunno but they would never be able to escape that energy in the middle.
There is also the problem with age. Most big bag theories predict the universe to be around 10 million years old (give or take 10-15 minutes, hehe). However most observations predict a lot of stars - based on their uranium content and light given off - to be more than 15 million years older. Stars that are older than their alledged creation.
Yeah, so that's some of the issues that I find the most weird and challanging about the big bang. Sorry if I used a tonne of abreviations and stuff in there, is annoying to type that much. But gravteck, you had some good points dude, I'm gonna have to sit down and have a think now. ''
Gravteck:
''In classical physics it seems like this violates the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy) and conservation of mass. But in quantum physics:
'But in the quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a spontaneous and unpredictable fashion.' - (Davies, 1983, 162)
And since mass and energy are interchangeable (e=mc^2), the creation of this matter from a vacuum fluctuation doesn't violate those laws.''
''I think I left something out that would be a big mistake on my part. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. The equation for gravity is actually G = g((m1d1)/(m2d2)) where g is the gravitational constant. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero. So having zero energy in the vacuum, actually allows for the matter to be produced because we have zero energy afterwards still... I know this isn't the most deductive explanation, but I think it shall do. ''
Phattim:
''Hmmmm, that's interesting.
So you're saying that the negative and the positive energy in the universe basically cancels each other out to make a zero constant gravitational value over the universe? Okay.
According to the Big Bang theory, some 10 to 20 billion years ago, all of the matter and energy of the universe was compressed into a cosmic egg, or plasma ball, consisting of sub-atomic particles and radiation. Nobody knows where the cosmic egg came from, or how it got there -- it was just there. For some equally inexplicable reason, the cosmic egg exploded. As the matter and radiation expanded, so the theory says, it cooled sufficiently for elements to form, as protons and electrons combined to form hydrogen of atomic weight one, and neutrons were subsequently captured to form helium of atomic weight four. Most of the gas that formed consisted of hydrogen. These gases, it is then supposed, expanded radially in all directions throughout the universe until they were so highly dispersed that an extremely low vacuum and temperature existed. No oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon, sulfur, copper, iron, nickel, uranium, or other elements existed. The universe consisted essentially of hydrogen gas.
So that's how space got here according to the big bang theory. Then there's planets. You have all these clouds of cosmic gasses out there with all kinds of gravity swirling around. What I don't quite understand is how these gas clouds and elements managed to form planets. Surely you could have a few particles join together with their own individual gravitational pulls right, but seeing as to begin with, all the particles are seperate they would have either stayed all apart or they would have grouped together and formed one giant planet - perhaps. Else they may have formed many smalled balls and then torn each other apart or gradually formed a larger one - maybe. But seeing as we can't bring gasses together like that here on earth under controlled environments, how would it happen in space in such an unpredictable state? Perhaps it's that unpredictability that could allow it to happen, I don't know, but we're dealing with something pretty darn amazing. ''
NoTeefa:
''im gonna try and reduce the intelligence level hhhere by saying......i like tacos.''
Source:
https://newschoolers.com/PHP/Forum/ReadTopic.php4?post_id=10015815&catid=2&start_num=50
